Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency; often there is a demand that the propositions in a coherent system lend mutual inferential support to each other. So, for example, the completeness and comprehensiveness of the underlying set of concepts is a critical factor in judging the validity and usefulness of a coherent system. A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole. Though this concept of truth may seem more applicable to aesthetics
In this paper the subject to discuss includes two arguments in reference to the existence of true altruism, better known as the ability to help others unselfishly. The “yes” side of the argument is the views of C. Daniel Batson and his colleagues who believe people are capable of helping others with true unselfish interest. The “no” side of the argument is the views of Robert Cialdini and his colleagues who believe people often help others as self fulfillment that allows people to make themselves feel better. Summary of Arguments Social psychologist C. Daniel Batson and his colleagues propose that “people sometimes help for purely altruistic reasons” (Nier, 2010, Issue 17, Issue Summary, para. 1).
An Investigation of Character and Virtue (Charles Taylor's Theory defended in spite of a robust challenge by Owen Flanagan) 1 An Investigation of Character and Virtue Taylor's Thesis Outlined: One of the most striking and valuable features of Charles Taylor's Moral thought is the emphasis he places on the value of articulating the moral visions that direct one's life. We may live by a tacitly accepted value system -‐-‐ never even feeling the need to say what that system is. But if we engage in the struggle to define for ourselves and for others the values we live by, we deepen our understanding of those moral values by laying bare their foundations. We also heighten our awareness of the complexity of moral life. (Ruth Abbey: "Charles Taylor" Princeton University Press, 2000, pp.
Firstly, what is innate knowledge? Innate knowledge is a term used when people believe that we have a substantial amount of knowledge and ideas that are known from birth. Innate knowledge is a rationalist view. There are philosophers who are rationalist-this is that their theory is that we have a priori knowledge (knowledge that doesn’t require sense experience) and synthetic propositions (depends on the world). Some philosophers are empiricist-this is that they have a theory of having a posteriori knowledge (knowledge that is required through our sense experience) and that is of synthetic propositions (dependent on the world and our sense experience).
How do we know something and how does that coincide with how we can prove that claim? Our accuracy of knowledge and confidence of proving that knowledge is based on the justification that we have to support that category of knowledge. These examples of justification can be categorized by personal experience, secondary sources and emotion. These forms of justification interact and correspond with one another to create an ultimate conclusion that will result in a piece of knowledge. In the question being analyzed, we are meant to find out how to determine the “knowledge that we value”.
Well, they're pretty much how they sound. Rationalism ascribes purpose to individual action - that is to say, actors (be they people, organizations, or nations) are the unit of analysis, and they have some set of preferences and perceptions which governs their behavior in a sensible fashion. "Bounded rationality" allows for all sorts of "cognitive limitations" (e.g. uncertainty, inability to properly calculate your expected utility, etc. ), but still subscribes to the overall view that action is purposeful (even if the purpose is mistaken sometimes).
Something important to consider when looking at the theory of relativism is that it is just a theory. I personally believe it to be a good theory in general, but it should not be interpreted as a foundation for a belief structure. Nor should it be applied to every set of circumstances encountered throughout life. It is purely illogical to assume that one single theory will provide us with the proper guidance required to successfully negotiate every “right or wrong” decision. Relativism allows people to understand that individuals develop belief structures
Process theory holds that if an outcome is to be duplicated, so too must the process which originally created it, and that there are certain constant necessary conditions for the outcome to be reached. When the phrase is used in connection with human motivation, process theory attempts to explain the mechanism by which human needs changes. Some of the theories that fall in this category are expectancy theory, equity theory, and goal setting[1] In management research, process theory provides an explanation for 'how' something happens and a variance theory explains 'why'. [2] Some theorists claim that all natural processes have complex phases in which the output state of the process is not determined by the input states of the processes. The condition is defined by Robert Rosen as being "complex".
The pre-conditions that satiate the concept are full information, the ability to objectively evaluate arguments and freedom from self-deception or coercion. The third main belief has relevance to social theory, which facilitates explanations of social order, conflict and changes. He articulates that the class difference and societal divisions may limit individual learning capacity. Mezirow assumes that society is made up autonomous, responsible individuals who can act to bring about incremental change to their
He also includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure won't be followed by pain & vice versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we must also account for its EXTENT. John Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham's philosophy by emphasizing (1) It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to utilitarianism, (2) the calculus is unreasonable -- qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction between 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures), and (3) utilitarianism refers to "the Greatest Happiness Principle" -- it seeks to promote the capability of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most amount of people (this is its "extent"). Act and Rule Utilitarianism We can apply the principle of utility to either PARTICULAR ACTIONS or GENERAL RULES.